The primary focus of this editorial is to briefly restate the intent of
the founding fathers when they drafted the Second Amendment and then
illustrate, with facts, the futility of passing laws regulating firearms
and magazines in the hope that doing so will prevent criminal behavior.

Those who will argue for a new “assault weapons” and “high capacity
magazine” ban will claim that there is no legitimate “sporting purpose”
or self defense need for these types of weapons and accessories; as if
sporting or self defense use were the intent of the Constitutional
guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms. In its entirety the Second
Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.” There is no mention of this being a protection
of the right to have guns for sporting purposes, or as some will claim,
solely for self defense purposes. The intent of the language could not
be clearer, the right to bear arms was much more militaristic in nature
and was to ensure that the recently acquired free status of the several
newly united states, individually and collectively, could be defended
against, and not subjugated to, a new tyrannical rule imposed by the
creation of a federal government. Thomas Jefferson confirmed this
understanding saying, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government”. More recently the late Hubert Humphrey, not
known as a bastion of conservative or right wing political thought,
said, “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any
government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of
citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should
not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution
should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear
arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more
safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but
which historically has proved to be always possible.”